Even on show bikes, they can't give them the chop - even just enough to look slightly realistic. (But they could cut the fork steerers.)

<img src='http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2007/tech/shows/interbike07/interbike0718/JD_vegaslook007.jpg'>
<img src='http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2007/tech/shows/interbike07/interbike0718/JD_vegaslook008.jpg'>

It kinda looks weird with the whole seat tube as one.

why can't they?

Forks cost next to nothing...

The frames aren't cheap...

Here's a more realistic photo...I had to cut 4cm off the top...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v190/merckx56/helium1-2.jpg

Why would you put the frame in the throwaway bin just for a show?

The frames aren't cheap...They might not sell them for cheap, but don't kid yourself.

Tradeshows are expensive. Silly spend all that money and not put your best foot forward, IMO.

They blow hundreds of thousands of dollars on thos shows.........a $500 (at cost) frame ain't gonna break them....it's stupid not to cut them and make them look reasonably attractive....it's a show after all, 1st impressions are important.

Oh, and I suspect if they "sold" that frame at the end of the show....even cut they could make money on their cost.

No brainer to me.

Len

... Oh, and I suspect if they "sold" that frame at the end of the show....even cut they could make money on their cost.

Sure - cut it for an average or tallish rider, then sell it at the end of the show for, say, $500 below normal retail. The buyer still gets a brand new frame, the seller makes a profit.

Even on show bikes, they can't give them the chop - even just enough to look slightly realistic.



Yeah, in hindsight we probably could have trimmed the seat tubes a smidge to give a better proportion. We decided not to so they'd be easier to sell after the show, but it's something to consider for next year. Here are a few shots with cut seat tubes to make up for it :) :

Colleague 1's bike:
http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee284/lookcycleusa/Mings586.jpg

Colleague 2's bike:
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a163/chza00/LCUSABikes-RR017.jpg

My bike:
http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee284/lookcycleusa/Chas586.jpg

Best Regards,
chas@LookUSA

Chas - what is the crank on colleague 1's bike? I can think of a certain 595 that it would look nice on.

Chas - what is the crank on colleague 1's bike? I can think of a certain 595 that it would look nice on.

Hi Terry,

That's a SRAM Red (http://www.competitivecyclist.com/za/CCY?PAGE=BUY_PRODUCT_STANDARD&PRODUCT.ID=4477&CATEGORY.ID=6&MODE=&TFC=TRUE) crank on his bike.

chas@LookUSA

Thx.

It's really brutally efficient looking.

Thx.

It's really brutally efficient looking.

Yeah, it does make the Record look kind of anemic...

I would love one of these frames but for me, personally, I think it is spoiled by the fact that the slope on the top tube is virtually imperceptible.

While I don't like the crazy compact geometry of frames like the new Wilier, I would much prefer a more obvious slope to have the top tube joining the seat tube in the same area as the seat stays to give a better feeling of having the bike underneath you (I hate standing up to pedal and having the top tube hit the insides of my legs - part of the reason why I haven't changed from a Giant TCR compact for the last 4 years I guess, despite attempts at a few alternatives that I haven't been able to gel with)

Yeah, in hindsight we probably could have trimmed the seat tubes a smidge to give a better proportion. We decided not to so they'd be easier to sell after the show, but it's something to consider for next year. Here are a few shots with cut seat tubes to make up for it :) :

Colleague 1's bike:
http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee284/lookcycleusa/Mings586.jpg

Colleague 2's bike:
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a163/chza00/LCUSABikes-RR017.jpg

My bike:
http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee284/lookcycleusa/Chas586.jpg

Best Regards,
chas@LookUSA

Chas your colleague's bike looks amazing. I'm a big fan of the integrated seatpost. Nothing is stiffer and more efficienct. With SRAM RED all over that machine the bike must climb like it has wings on it. Great example of the possibilities out there for some incredible builds ocurring world wide. By the way, great boothe at this years shows. I saw lots of pictures. I hope Look has a great 2008 year. Cheers!

Nothing is stiffer and more efficienct.

Those bikes are stunning, and I wouldn't really knock them for any reason, but that is a complete load of crap.

Those bikes are stunning, and I wouldn't really knock them for any reason, but that is a complete load of crap.

Yea, I was thinking the same thing.

Len

What kind of seatpost is stiffer and more efficienct than an integrated post? :D

Those bikes are stunning, and I wouldn't really knock them for any reason, but that is a complete load of crap.

Applesauce and Len have you raced on an Integrated Seatpost frame? I personally have. And I can say that its the "stiffest most efficient" frameset that I have ever ridden. The frame I am referring to is the Noah Ridley. The bike screams and it climbs like it has a gas engine built into the rear. I'd like to know what you both think is "stiffer and more efficient"? I'm just curious.

Colleague 1's bike is the bee's-knee's!!!

- Chas, don't make me call Skippy and order one of them 586's! :D

"Losses" due to "seatpost" inefficiency weren't a problem until the marketing guys made it one. Again, those are nice bikes, and I'm really glad you're doing whatever you have to to lap up the industry drivel and justify your bike acquisition, but my Thomson Masterpiece post has never come up short. In fact, I've had my arse kicked by guys with $7 Kalloy posts.

Not that I would normally cite BSNYC, but this, regarding the new Madone, seems more than a little appropriate: "Trek engineers were finally liberated from the crippling constraints of seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong, whose irrational demands for a durable, comfortable, and practical road racing bike long prevented them from implementing the types of design improvements we real cyclists all long for..."

And for the record, I've raced on all sorts of bikes, and now I'm back on custom steel.

"Losses" due to "seatpost" inefficiency weren't a problem until the marketing guys made it one. Again, those are nice bikes, and I'm really glad you're doing whatever you have to to lap up the industry drivel and justify your bike acquisition, but my Thomson Masterpiece post has never come up short. In fact, I've had my arse kicked by guys with $7 Kalloy posts.

Not that I would normally cite BSNYC, but this, regarding the new Madone, seems more than a little appropriate: "Trek engineers were finally liberated from the crippling constraints of seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong, whose irrational demands for a durable, comfortable, and practical road racing bike long prevented them from implementing the types of design improvements we real cyclists all long for..."

And for the record, I've raced on all sorts of bikes, and now I'm back on custom steel.

I think you misunderstood the statement/question. I wasn't just talking about the "seatpost" specifically as an individual component, I was talking about how the integrated seatpost adds to the OVERALL stiffness and efficiency of the frameset as a whole.

Don't get me wrong. I love steel too. Steel is good. But in my humble opinion, carbon is a superior material for current racing these days. If it wasn't, the entire Pro Peleton would be on steel framesets. From what I saw this year there were lots of teams tearing it up in the Major Grand Tours on framesets with Integrated Seatposts. Is it the new standard? Possibly. But again, manufacturers are trying to capture an audience with their "daring" designs. Sure. It's a marketing ploy. One that many seem to embrace for personal reasons.

"Losses" due to "seatpost" inefficiency weren't a problem until the marketing guys made it one. Again, those are nice bikes, and I'm really glad you're doing whatever you have to to lap up the industry drivel and justify your bike acquisition, but my Thomson Masterpiece post has never come up short. In fact, I've had my arse kicked by guys with $7 Kalloy posts.

...



There are a lot of different ISP designs currently available - some actually add benefits to the frame and some are essentially just cosmetic. The goal of our ISP design isn't to increase seatpost efficiency - if anything it is an ancillary benefit. Look frames are all about overall ride quality, so the main reason we do it is simply because it gives us the ability to tune the feel of the bike a little bit more. The feel of a bike can change significantly depending on the seatpost one's using, so by integrating the post with the frame, it helps to keep the bike feeling as it was intended to. The other reason we do it is to increase comfort when you're in the saddle. The elastomers built into the E-Post help dampen road vibration and smooth the ride out a bit. Will it make you faster? Probably not, but it allows us to build a high-end race bike that's still comfortable on those 5, 6, 7 hour rides.

The red parts in this photo are elastomers. The one that acts as a cushion between the top of the seat tube and the post comes in 3 different firmnesses, so you can customize the feel a little. Sorry for posting such a big picture, but I wanted to give a better idea what I was talking about...picture's worth a thousand words, etc...:)
http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee284/lookcycleusa/2008E-Post.jpg

Best,
chas@LookUSA

I wasn't just talking about the "seatpost" specifically as an individual component, I was talking about how the integrated seatpost adds to the OVERALL stiffness and efficiency of the frameset as a whole.

Why is "stiffness" so easily equated with "efficiency"? How often do you see guys a) losing races due to losses at any component (including non-ceramic bearings...) or b) atop bikes that are heating up due to such losses? After all, (pretty much) the only way power could be lost due to "stiffness" is if said frame (or other component - cranks/BB spindles is another favorite of mine) were heating up. Again, how often has that posed any problem, serious or otherwise?

As for the professional world, they ride what they get told to ride. In my experience as a framebuilder and racer, in fact, I've never met a dumber or more easily duped lot who didn't, in the long run, give a crap about their bikes anyway.* Amateurs (face it, that's you) are the only bunch who really care about this or that, and their the folks who are most susceptible to marketing ploys because they're the target audience: bike companies aren't marketing anything to pros; pros are marketing bike companies' wares for the company, and they do what they're told so at the end of the day they get dinner.

*That's not to say that they don't care one way or the other if they fit; biomechanics are a much quicker route to losses due to efficiency, and pros, if they know about anything at all, know that a big chunk of this derives from plain ol' comfort. (Which is rarely spoken of alongside stiffness...) Also, I'm aware that this argument pretty much negates the suggestion/case made by BSNYC that Armstrong had a hand in the design: I think there are exceptions to every rule, and most guys (eg, Michael Rasmussen, not the best example these days) perceive lightness - again, if anything - to be some kind of performance acme.

Will it make you faster? Probably not, but it allows us to build a high-end race bike that's still comfortable on those 5, 6, 7 hour rides.

Thanks for your input. (And plug...sorry.) It's nice to have some representation on the boards. See my almost-simultaneous post re: comfort... While I don't necessarily think a few hunks of rubber will do more than, say, a custom frame - even more so one made of steel or carbon or Ti, etc. - innovation is always nice. I'm not a retro-grouch, and I'm not averse to innovation (not synonymous with "technology," however...), but I do tire of holy-grail discursive-tactics.

Hey Backinthesaddle, What kind of bars are you running? They look to have a nice round bend to them.

Applesauce and Len have you raced on an Integrated Seatpost frame? I personally have. And I can say that its the "stiffest most efficient" frameset that I have ever ridden. The frame I am referring to is the Noah Ridley. The bike screams and it climbs like it has a gas engine built into the rear. I'd like to know what you both think is "stiffer and more efficient"? I'm just curious.

There is a huge difference between physical reality and what you might feel with your butt. There is no correlation that has EVER been established between stiffness and bicycle performance. Let me say that again: NONE! If you like the way the Ridley felt, then that's good for you; however it says absolutely nothing about performance.

There is a huge difference between physical reality and what you might feel with your butt. There is no correlation that has EVER been established between stiffness and bicycle performance. Let me say that again: NONE! If you like the way the Ridley felt, then that's good for you; however it says absolutely nothing about performance.

Are you sure about that? Check out these studies:

http://www.bikethink.com/Frameflex.htm

http://www.bikethink.com/joint_stress.htm

http://www.webs1.uidaho.edu/imap/articles.htm (focus on the bicycling section of this article - it's really interesting how records were shattered with a little tweak in "material stiffness") :blush2:

Did you actually read any of that? The first article concludes with this:

"Having concluded that frame flex does not waste energy, I do not believe that frame stiffness is irrelevant. You could say that a stiff frame feels more responsive. A stiffer frame can give the rider more confidence especially in a sprint. I think the fact that you don't have a 'stiffer is always better' criteria makes frame design that much more interesting." (emphasis mine)

The second one says nothing about stiffness.

The third one says nothing pertinent about stiffness.

What's your point?

Are you sure about that? Check out these studies:

http://www.bikethink.com/Frameflex.htm

http://www.bikethink.com/joint_stress.htm

http://www.webs1.uidaho.edu/imap/articles.htm (focus on the bicycling section of this article - it's really interesting how records were shattered with a little tweak in "material stiffness") :blush2:

As I said, there is zero correlation. You should read those referenced articles better. Give science a try.

Thanks for your input. ... It's nice to have some representation on the boards. ....

I agree..it's nice to have "industry" comment on the board too. Thanks for your input.